How many here feel that males should or do have less of say in the abortion debate because they cannot become pregnant? I ask because it is a opinion that I have seen expressed on this board, and I am interested to know how widespread it is.

This is a survey. I am not trying to start any arguments, I just wish to know.

117. No, I'm not saying the father has the right to say "yes you will".

Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 04:41 PM by Vash the Stampede

I'm saying the father has the right to say, "well, maybe it's a good idea". Saying men have NO say in the matter is complete bullshit.

Perhaps you're just not listening when I say that it's still ultimately the woman's choice, but to say that men can't be involved with the debate is flat-out wrong.

On edit: I'm saying a man SHOULD be able to get custody if he wants. I'm about INCREASING overall responsibility, not decreasing it. But with increased responsibility, there's also shared responsibility, and that's the problem I have with saying men have no voice at all in abortion.

who is usually held most accountable and most responsible. Men can fuck and then go their merry way if they want, and far too many of them do. Biologically and culturally, they can get away with it, and far too many of them do.

My ex-fiance threw me out of the house when I was three months pregnant and then proceeded to totally ignore me because "he didn't want to deal with it." Well, hell, neither did I, but I really didn't have much of a choice, did I? But I was the one held responsible, I was the one who had to go through the pregnancy and birth alone, and I'm the one raising him alone. His father bitches about paying the terribly meager monthly child support (enough to buy the kid a couple of tubes of toothpaste a month if I'm lucky), and has never paid for any clothes, food, school supplies and fees, or hardly anything else. And I've known an awful lot of women who experienced the same thing, and the men still aren't really held accountable.

Men used the abortion laws for over a century to control and intimidate women, and I'll be goddamned if they're going continue to do the same thing now. You don't want the woman to have an abortion, or you don't want any kids, keep your dick in your pants. It's that fucking simple, pun intended.

And I'm incredibly sorry for the situation you had to endure. That is absolutely terrible.

I agree - men have to be more responsible for themselves and their own actions. My point, however, you are ignoring completely.

I am NOT saying men have a veto or any force of will in this issue. I'm saying that they should absolutely have some input. If a man is willing to take responsibility for his actions and be good father, or hell, even raise a child on his own, so long as there's not a medical issue involved, there should be at least a dialog that occurs one way or another.

If the mother's health is in danger, that's a different discussion entirely. And either way, yes, the decision is ultimately to be made by the woman. But that does not give a woman the right to stick her fingers in her ears and not even listen to what the father has to say.

Just because it has been one way in the past (ie. men dominating the issue), that does NOT mean it should be entirely the polar opposite in the future. There IS a grey area, and that is where this issue should be.

and that's at the point when they decide whether or not to wear a condom. Once that stuff leaves your body, fellas, it no longer belongs to you. If men whine about condoms and refuse to be proactive, then they've lost their right to decide anything, including support of a child should the woman decide to risk continuing the pregnancy.

Bearing children is a risk free proposition to men. It's not so for women. Bearing a child involves considerable risk to health, finances, social support, career, and LIFE. It has to be up to the woman in question to decide whether or not to assume this risk. It's her body, her risk, her life, and her decision.

Women who are in healthy relationships will always consult their partners, even though the decision is theirs alone. If any men out there want their opinions listened to, then it's up to them to create healthy relationships.

There you have it, guys. If you hate abortion, then wear a condom. If you are terrified of being hauled into court for child support after a one night stand, then wear a condom. It's your way to have a say and to protect yourself, as well as your partner.

I thought they were related, and I was interested to know whether the male's lack of say derived from his failure in his sovereign responsibility for birth control if he is against abortions and gets a woman pregnant. I guess I have my answer, at least as far as you are concerned. Thank you for your opinion.

Just my opinion (realizing others may disagree, and feel free to do so)-If there was an effort NOT to have kids (Ex-, birth control being used, but failing.) Ultimately it's still the woman's choice, however forcing fatherhood on a man (or child support payments) against his wishes is not a very nice thing to do. Hopefully the woman would at least take the man's feelings into account in such a situation.....*shrug*

If a woman has sex, should she not be prepared for the possibility that she might become pregnant? Accidents do happen......

What you're basically saying is that if a man doesn't want to be a father, he should never have sex.........(which is true, but very fundy)........However, how can you say that, and NOT say "if a woman doesn't want to be a mother then she shouldn't have sex" ...... Which takes away the main reason that many abortions occur.....because a woman gets pregnant despite taking precautons.....just my humble opinion

Obviously women are the only ones who can get pregnant.....Which is why ultimately they have the final decision as to whether to get an abortion....i don't think anyone's been saying that they shouldn't have the final decision.......What i'm trying to say is that if the decision is going to affect the man for the rest of his life as well...(as it would, if the woman decided to have the child), he should at least be allowed to put in his two cents worth.....If the woman decides to throw his feelings in the situation out the window and have the kid anyway, that's her decision. (although, if there was protection being used, there was obviously the intent during sex of trying NOT to have children...thereby making it a very inconsiderate decision, for which many guys may get upset about)

Nobody's saying that the man should have the final say over a woman on this....(at least not that i've seen) However, I can't believe people think that something that is potentially going to affect a man for the rest of his life is something he shouldn't even be able to express an opinion on....

his opinion and make his feelings known. But the final decision must be with the woman, definitely. If a couple were in a committed, healthy relationship, I would hope that they'd discuss it together with respect for each other's opinion and come to a mutual decision. But if they can't reach a mutual decision, the final decision still must be the woman's.

Ladies, if you dont want to have to make that choice, make him wear a condom. If you dont want to worry about fighting for child support, use birth control.

I'm not arguing that women dont bear tremendous burdens when it comes to sex, pregnancy, child rearing and abortion decsions - they do - but it always pisses me off when people argue as if only men have a choice to use birth control.

"to use the excuse that they don't want to be fathers; if they have sex at all, they should be prepared for that possiblity. If they don't want to take the chance, then don't have sex. "

Same goes for women, no ? If you dont want to be a mother, dont have sex.

That's a pretty conservative way to look at it, don't you think? "If it ain't my problem it ain't my business" (even if you forget about the fact that it does take two to make a kid). Liberal philosophy is usually that "if one person is not free, nobody is". Do you also think that whites should have no say over civil rights?

And that has nothing to do with abortion directly. A person is morally justified in leaving their significant other if they no longer wish to be with them.

If they have a serious disagreement over ethics, so much so that one has lost respect for the other, of course they have the right to leave the relationship.

If the woman chooses to keep the child and the man opposes it, he has an obligation to pay child support - his obligation is to the child. But he has no obligation to the mother to remain in a relationship he no longer wants to be in.

If the biological father says, "nope, don't want no kid" ---and the sex was consensual--- Then the biological mother needs to choose between: Abortion (the man pays as much as he is able)AdoptionBeing a single parent of a kid whose jerky father didn't want him/her.

But I don't think an 18 year old who got drunk and lucky one night should have the obligation of a son or daughter forced on him for the next 18 years because he was too drunk to remember to stop at 7-11 for a condom.

In a perfect world, the male in the relationship should have a good deal of "say" in the matter, but not any sort of final authority. Of course, in that same perfect world, the male in the relationship sticks around, takes responsibility, etc.

But even in the best of relationships, one's body still belongs to oneself. And that means that, in the final analysis, the guy's opionion can always be trumped.

men have no say in the matter if a woman decides to get an abortion or not. Whether abortion is right or not is subject to debate by men and women alike, but the ultimate decision and the ultimate right is purely a woman's.

It's a lot easier to take away someone else's rights. When I hear about abortion laws I immediately think about how my life could be affected or could have been when I was younger. Men know they will never face a crisis pregnancy.

Then they would presumably discuss it and the woman would take the man's opinion into account.

But it is her decision, in the end.

She is the one risking her life (saying this as someone who spent weeks in the hospital during pregnancy). She is the one who is sacrificing whatever comes to her as a result of the pregnancy - whether it be long term effects of it physically, or the financial impact, because the man always has the option to walk away and stick her with all the medical costs, which can be over $10,000 for the delivery alone - it could put a poverty stricken woman with no insurance in debt for decades. She is the one who may lose her job if the pregnancy makes her too sick to work (as in my case) - again, potentially dooming her to a life of poverty, whether she decides to keep the baby or give it up for adoption.

The pregnancy, in the end, is a medical issue (not strictly medical, but in large part it is) that affects the woman, not the man. So I view it as any other medical decision. Like if a man has cancer, the woman he's with might provide opinions as to whether he should undergo chemo or surgery, but it's his decision to make. (My pro-choicedness extends to both sexes in that way.)

I said it's the woman's decision in the end, although the guy should feel free to voice his opinion. In my case, an unplanned pregnancy, I would have had an abortion, but the father talked me out of it. And that's fine, I have no regrets about that at all.

But also, I should point out, during those few weeks when I was pregnant and in the hospital on an IV, when I had lost 20 pounds in two weeks from complications, he chose to head out hitchhiking with his buddy, on a drinking camping trip. Certainly that has affected my thinking on who gets to make the decision.

During the pregnancy, I was the only responsible party, because I had no choice. He had the option to come and go as he pleased. I didn't have the option of leaving him on an IV hatching our kid while I took "a break from the stress." The irony of him deciding that I should carry the child, while he took a vacation because the stress wasn't good for him, and of the nurses assuming my supervisor was my husband because he visited me in the hospital more, hasn't left me.

(Should mention my kid's a sweetheart, number one in her class, all the typical braggy stuff you'd expect a parent to say, it's all true in her case)

show with respect to women's uterus's. It's OUR organ, OUR bodies but there are those men that want ownership of it. Ah, the delights of this "ownership" society mentality that these self righteous, right wing bigots want us to buy into.

I am solidly on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate, but I do object to some of the terminology we often use. When we call it "protecting a woman's right to choose," for example, I would much prefer gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language like "protecting the right of reproductive freedom." This language would recognize the many contributions BOTH genders make to child-bearing and child-rearing. Sure, the woman is the one who has to go through nine months of hard labor to birth a child, but the man is the one who has to go through 21 years of hard labor making child-support payments. BOTH genders have a vital role, BOTH genders have to make sacrifices, therefore BOTH genders have a say in whether they are going to become parents. That's why I believe calling it "a woman's right to choose" is sexist language -- anti-MALE sexist language because it excludes the man from his right to participate in the decision of whether they are to become parents, and also because it ignores and denies his role in the decades-long process of being a parent. I'm not attempting to deny anything to women here; I'm attempting to include BOTH men and women in this. And I do believe that if they can't agree, the woman has the final say, because of those nine months and the uniquely intimate thing that must be for a woman. I am sure that no man ever can truly understand that. In case you're wondering, I am a 55-year-old man who has never been a parent (a bicycle accident when I was 12 left me infertile -- I believe it was in my karma in this lifetime not to be a parent).

"the man is the one who has to go through 21 years of hard labor making child-support payments"

The man is not "the one" who goes through that. First, child support is not always paid by the man, sometimes it's paid by the woman. Second, it often doesn't begin to cover the actual expenses. In my case, I can assure you, my out of pocket expenses were far more than the pathetic $20 per week he was ordered to pay. Just because there's no court order stating how much the custodial parent has to spend doesn't mean they aren't supporting the child as well. And finally, the last time I checked, only 17% of child support that's been court ordered is actually ever collected.

You do make some good points, I don't mean to discount your post as a whole. Just that one statement rubbed me the wrong way.

And I would also add, as a single parent, that the comment about "men go through 21 years of hard labor paying child support" is a joke. The amount my son's father pays monthly is nothing compared to what I pay for him monthly, NOTHING! And that's usually the case. When the woman can get the child support at all, that is.

Early in life, I thought it was an issue that men should stay out of. But as I've listened to more pro-Life men, I begin to understand that they often mourn aborted children. As a result, I find myself hoping that women who are impregnated by men with whom they are in committed relationships (i.e. he's the ONLY one who could have gotten her pregnant) should have a 49% vote, with lobbying rights.

I am also very understanding of infertile men who are pro-Life, as well as those who adopt special needs children.

But in general, I don't think a man with a pro-life position who has no track record of POSITIVE pro-life activity (adopting, assisting with adoption, single parenting, etc.) is worth listening to.

Similarly, I question the motives of pro-choice men. Some of them seem to be more pro-abortion than pro-choice, and become quite angry when the woman's "choice" is not the one they wanted her to make. I completely UNDERSTAND their anger. But I don't think they should represent themselves as pro-choice - it's misleading at best.

I guess, in general, I tend to respect PEOPLE who take DIRECT, POSITIVE action toward their beliefs instead of those who just hold opinions and/or make donations from a distance.

205. great insight on what pro-choice really is and what it implies for men

IF you are a pro-choice man, that means you support either decision. if the woman wants it, then she has it. If she doesn't want it, then she doesn't have it. Those are the two choices.

I agree wholely with what you say about pro-life/pro-choice men.

I've talked this over with my partner and we agreed early on if she got pregnant today, it's a good possibility that we would agree to abort. However, since we've been together, her opinions have changed slightly on that, so if it happened, it's possible we'd choose to keep it. Really, she'd be making the decision, but since we are partners, it is "our" choice in that I support her decision.

of course, with my level of debt, having a kid now would be a nightmare financially, but that's neither here nor there...

away street. For a woman to become pregnant, two were doing the dance.The problem is that since the baby is baked in the woman's oven, she somehow ends up with the whole responsibility. The responsibility to keep or abort.

A responsible woman, like a responsible man, demand the use of a condom. If a pregnancy occurs, they should both be responsible in the final decision made, but giving the edge to the woman's decision. Each case is different and individual.

Has anyone here been in this situation and how did you solve it?

Bush, Falwell or the Pope telling me what to do with my body, that's a different story...stay out of my crutch.

There are people who are against abortion, even for rape, incest, and other situations that involve situations that are beyond the control of "maternal birth control".and most of those people don't give a damn about that child once it leaves the mother's womb!

it gave me a mild stroke. If I'd continued taking it, I would have had a more severe stroke.

Edited to add the following:

My husband and I decided when we were going to have a baby based on the fact that no birth control was safe for me. I'm allergic to spermicides so even most barrier methods aren't right for me. After I had my daughter, I got an IUD, but you can't get one of those until you've given birth. I don't know what I would have done if we hadn't felt ready to have a baby.

210. I personally can't use any hormonal birth control (nuvaring, depo are out)

or anything that requires use of a spermicide. I have a latex allergy too, but I understand that since I've been married there's a non-latex condom available? I'm not up on this stuff anymore. Anyway, most barrier methods require use of a spermicide - including the diaphragm and cervical cap for sure.

I used the mini-pill but had other hormonal problems as a result of that. That was the last birth control I used before having my daughter.

are both available for people who have latex allergies, I personally suffer from that myself. Luckily I have no problem with Depo.. although I cant take the pill, multiple brands have made me horribly sick. Last time I went in for Depo they tried to get me to try out the Nuvaring and it kinda freaked me out a bit so I decided to just stay with what had been working

For instance, female condoms are polyurethane based and do not need to be used with spermicide.

Lea's Shield, made of silicone, has had relatively good results (9% failure) without spermacide.

This isnt directed at you personally.. You have obviously been proactive in controlling your reproduction. Some women have an incredibly hard time with current birth control methods. However, things like spermacide and latex allergy occur in between 2-4% of the population. What about the other 96-98%?

I can understand women who have an abortion once. "Mistakes" are made. What I have a really hard time understanding is people who have repeat abortions or who make up their mind that if they get pregnant they will abort without doing everything in their humanly power to prevent pregnancy. Personally, Im a strong believer in natural family planning. Charting your basal body temp, cervical mucus, etc. Sure.. it isnt fool proof, but it is taking an active role in your reproduction and becoming in touch with your body.

I just really hate to see (DEFINATELY NOT YOU) some of the, what I consider, really lazy ways of looking at this in this thread.

I also hate to see how women just assume men dont give a damn about pregnancy, its none of their business.. until they can carry a baby, blah blah blah.. Well, you know what, if that is how you treat men, giving them no chance to be the responsible people they should be, why the heck would one be surprised that its how they are?

If you are not having sex at the times when you might get pregnant, doesn't that mean you aren't having sex when it's best? I know I'm most interested in sex and have a better time (trying to stay away from TMI here) if it's when I'm fertile (or would be if not for the IUD).

I personally would do everything in my power to not be in a situation where I would need an abortion. But I don't judge other women who live differently. I don't live their lives and I don't know what's happening with them.

I guess its all dependant on the person. My fiance and I did natural family planning for 3 years successfully. Ive had 3 laproscopies for ovarian torsion and endo so Ive been told since I was 14 that I needed to stay on some type of bc to manage the pain associated with my reproduction. Amazingly, when I stopped taking BC and started exploring more natural options and herbs like black cohosh and red raspberry my pain went away completely. Being in touch with my body kind of helped free alot of my sexual inhabitions.

For me, with the status of the world, I cant really relax into a moment when Im worried about an unplanned pregnancy. Im sure it's a psychological thing more then a physical thing. Personally, my enjoyment of sex seems so much more mental. Stable relationship, a partner I can truly trust, etc. I think being younger probably helps alot too. Im sure when I get into my 30s things will be a bit different in that department.

I was engaged, we were living together, we used birth control, I got pregnant anyway, he at first claimed he'd support me because I didn't want an abortion, I was afraid my parents would want me to have an abortion and he said "they'll have to go through me first", fiance grows more and more distant and less and less caring, fiance throws me out of the house because he "didn't want to deal with it", fiance accuses me of screwing around on him, I go home since there's nowhere else to go, I'm home for three weeks before I get up the guts to tell them I'm pregnant and I have to tell them alone, my parents want me to have an abortion, I resist for a couple weeks until they give in, I go through the pregnancy at home, have my son, very little contact with ex-fiance, finally tell him when our son is 14 months old that he has two months to start showing some interest in the child or I'll file for child support, he doesn't, I do, the battle is on, he finally acknowledges paternity when the tests come back, child support and visitation are arranged, child support and visitation schedules followed very erratically, and fourteen years later I'm still the one doing most of the child-rearing work and paying most of the expenses.

we didn't want an abortion and that we wanted to go ahead with the pregnancy. And he had promised to help tell my parents. Yeah, right. If men don't want to deal with the responsiblity of fatherhood, then they can damn well keep their dick in their pants, it's that fucking simple. Pun intended.

Men share in the creation of the child, they can damn well share in the responsibility. No one forces them at gunpoint to have sex. It appears that too many men want all the fun and none of the responsiblity, and society lets them off the hook for that.

it depends on the relationship. The problem with men having a say was, I thought, with some misogynist pressuring his girlfriend to abort when this wasn't the choice she preferred. AS a male, I never felt I had that right.

man had spent a big part of his life courting the woman, and then living with her and making plans with her, and sacrificed many things - his time, and his energy, and his future prospects - to be with her, and to be the father of her child, thus expecting to be a good father to the child, and planning for it with the woman for a long time? Do you think, that in such a case, the man's opinion should not be considered at all? I am not asking whether he should have the final say. I am only asking, should he be considered carefully in such a case, if he has devoted a lot of his life to a plan, which he has shared with his partner - I mean, if he gave up other plans and made other sacrifices for this expectation which his partner had shared with him? If the woman then changes her mind, then should such a man have NOTHING to say about it? I am just asking, as food for thought. In such a situation, do you think THAT man (I know this is not typical, but it does happen often enough to warrant consideration - and I suggest, even ONE such instance would warrant consideration) who did not just "plant a sperm" but rather spent many years of his life preparing for the conception of the child - do you think, maybe, such a man might have SOME right to say SOMEthing about a possible abortion? I mean, if the woman had been part of this, and part of such plans for a long time?

one finds out their partner's position on the issue BEFORE it becomes an issue

if one or the other doesn't like it, they know where the door is

I don't want children, and want (and have) a partner who feels the same way. Should pregnancy occurr, and said partner changes her mind, that is her right, and my ONLY, SOLE responsibility is to deal with that honorably

She stated that there were different types of negotiations. this conformed to what I said since negotiation is a term indicating an open process. In her case the decisions is absolutely hers that's how she wants it. Other relationships are much different. Some people want or even need input-which puts decision making power in the hands of others in non-quanitifiable terms. Decisions aren't made in a vacuum unless you aren't open to discussion-and even then your decisions are institutionalized from a source not of your own creation. For some people, like lioness, this works, for others it doesn't. It used to work for my wife and I until we got pregnant, suddenly a whole lot of things we assumed about our relationship and our politics had to be reevaluated. I agree that the final straw lies with the women, but to preclude involvement of the father in all situations ignores a whole lot of reality. Yes there are situations were this is necessary-those examples are easier to combine-but only because they are more sensational/less mundane. In everyday terms, A professor of sociology would logically conclude that his input was taken in by his wife, interpreted and necessarily involving him in the process, even when his wife is also a sociologist far superior to himself. That's why the term negotiation was used because it's involved in most decisions. I think giving universal answers to a complex phenomenon is foolish. For me feminist theory would suggest that the decisions be locally based and non universal across all relationships. Lioness gave me her personal answer, my wife's is different, she no longer agrees with that sentiment. Our solution shouldn't determine someonelse's. Lioness can be who she wants. That sort of absolutism just didn't work anymore for us. I guess she reminded me of me a few years back-but mostly of my wife. That's all my point was.

there is no bottomline. What works for you doesn't work for all. Essentializing your own position isn't answering the question, though it appears absolutist, it's not. It's anthropocentric. A women's choice might perhaps include her partner. A man can not physically experience pregnancy and any of it's potential and inherent risks, but they can be there every moment of the way. Your argument mirrors the arguments that seperated men and women during the birthing process up until the 80's.

All relationships are based on trust, and sometimes that trust is broken, for various reasons (lies, changing priorities, who knows).

It's disappointing. But it doesn't give you the right to decide how others will live their life. Maybe a guy gets married, he plans on his wife staying home and having his dinner ready at 5pm every night. Maybe she does it for a year or two and then gets stir crazy and wants something more out of life. He may have had all kinds of plans for her to stay home and take care of him, to dress herself up pretty and put on perfume in perfect 1950's fashion.

But if she decides she wants to get a job as a construction worker, the same logic applies. He can be disappointed. He can try to persuade her to stay home and be his housewife. But it's her life, her decision.

Or maybe they planned jointly that when they saved money she'd get breast implants. Maybe he only married her under the condition that she'd do that for him, and he's planned his life around the idea of her having big breasts. (Who knows how men think? ) But if she backs out, that's her right. Her life, her body, her decision. His disappointment, his time to evaluate how seriously he took the vow to love, honor, and cherish til death do us part. That's his option to decide, then, if he is with the woman because he loves her and wants to spend the rest of his life with her, or if he wants to spend the rest of his life with generic woman and their child. What if she turns out not to be fertile? Do you pull a Henry the VIII and leave for someone else? (love honor cherish til I realize you aren't popping out the kids)

It's a tough decision, I'm not trying to make light of it with my facetious example. But the reality is that very few lives are exactly what you planned when you were 19, and very few marriages end up following the exact path you envisioned when you proposed.

I think we all make a mistake to make abortion a 'women's issue.' We will continue to lose the debate this way. Abortion is about reproductive choice and men have to take responsibility also.

I've been married a long time and the thought that my husband has no say on whether I carry a child just dismisses all my values. We have a partnership and both of us should have a say. In the end, I think I should have more say over pregnancy but not much. Men not in a committed relationship should not have much say over this choice.

It takes two people to become pregnant. Both are equally responsible and should have equal say so in the decision. Regardless of whose body the pregnancy resides in, all of us with more then a 6th grade education know that when two people engage in sex the result can very possibly be a pregnancy. If a woman or man is of the mind that they would not be willing to accept that possibility should it occur they should:a.) abstainb.) Undergo a selective vasectomy, hysterectomy, or tubal litigationc.) Practice birth control. If you cant take the pill, do depo. if you cant do depo, do the ovoring, if you cant do the ovoring, do norplant, if you cant do norplant, diaphram, if you cant do a diaphram, female condoms, spermicide, cervical cap, condom, etc, etc, etc.. there are a whole host of birth control options.d.) Make sure that the person that they are having sex with is on the same page as they are regarding what to do in the case of pregnancy.

Personally, I wouldn't have sex with someone before finding out how they stood on this issue. If they aren't close enough to discuss this with they sure as hell are not close enough to enter my body.

The bottom line is there's no 50-50 possible, because either you get an abortion, or you don't. You can't opt for half an abortion. So either the man or the woman gets controlling stock on this issue. It's one or the other. Given that choice ... there's sort of only one option.

There was a young woman there who was right on the borderline of her first trimester, she may have been a little further. She was aborting her child without telling the father, and seemed more than a little scared about her decision because she said he would "make" her have the child if he knew she was pregnant. Eventually the nurse came in and told her that they would go ahead and terminate the pregnancy even though she was past the time for this. She seemed tremendously relieved, only to get very upset just a few minutes later when they informed her she would not be able to have intercourse for a week or so. She said "but we are going to the beach this week, what will I tell him?". The whole situation seemed incredibly twisted, and I can remember that whole conversation just like it was yesterday. I bet she probably did not say anything and just went ahead and permitted intercourse and dealt with the pain. It really brings home what kind of warped and twisted relationships and what kind of power imbalances one must be in to have a partner like this.

In the news, it's the current trend to refer to any health care clinic that provides abortions as one of their services as an "abortion clinic" and it's a very misleading label - and coincidentally, one that reinforces the neocons' way of framing the issue. But it isn't generally the primary function of a women's health care center, and it's not constructive to characterize facilities like Planned Parenthood (or Fem-Care) in that fashion. Those clinics don't exist to provide abortions; they exist to keep women healthy, prevent unwanted pregnancies, and provide prenatal care. When the prevention fails, they offer abortion as a service, but it's not their primary mission.

You either birth the kid or you don't. You can't birth 49 % of the kid.

It's the same thing as saying the choice is between a woman and her doctor and her preacher. No it isn't. It's the woman's right to choose - 100 %. It doesn't matter what the doctor and prescher's opinion is.

When a man can carry the baby in his body for 9 months and is willing to pay for the operation to accomplish that, then, fine, let him have his little say.

All men who inveigh about abortion do is make it impossible for their partners to trust them with this part of their lives. A friend of mine is a hysterical anti-abortion fundy. Then he wondered why his wife went behind his back to get an abortion. (I'm not sure how he found out, but he did after the fact.) What could she do? They could not afford a child at that time, he was using drugs at that time, yet there was no way that he was going to agree with the right, safe decision for HER and HER body.

They had another child, which both wanted, many years later when the drug and money problems had been sorted out. The wife was right, the husband was wrong. And yet he still moans and rants on about the evils of abortion. He just puts a barrier of self righteousness between himself and his wife, who rolls her eyes behind his back.

If you don't trust a woman to make the right decision, why on earth would you want to make a baby with her and end up tied to her for 18 years through child support payments?

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communistsand other subversives. We intend to clean them out,even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country. --John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

My problem with giving men say is I see them eventually seeking total say, and trying to control wether a woman is ALLOWED to have one or not. I've heard both dems and reps use the God made women to be beneath men and to obey them speech. My dem bfs have even given me that one.

Fu#% that.

Since I don't believe they could have some say without abusing it, I think it should be left entirely up to women.

... it's a matter of wording. 'Debate' is the key word for me here. I think, politically, that men should NOT be involved in the debate. It is mostly men who are making these rules about us having a say over our bodies. So, no, they should not be part of it. Some guy in DC is deciding what I should do with my body?! Not.

In a personal committed relationship, though, men should be part of it. That is healthy. It takes two to get pregnant in the first place, and the two partners should be working as a team.

If there is a pregnancy in a casual relationship, then I think the woman has most of the say in the decision around it, unless the man is willing to become committed in a huge way at that point. Usually they just run away, though!

It's a touchy situation no matter what, but I believe women should be allowed control of their bodies and final decisions.

While you call it "the abortion debate," it's actually a question of a person's sovereignty over their own body - i.e. privacy rights. In this, we all have a critical vested interest.

When the question is posed, within the social context of choice, of a specific woman considering an abortion, then a lot depends on her relationship to the man and the considerations that influence her choice. If the man is in a position and of a mind to reliably provide offsets to her concerns, I believe that's appropriate.

In my opinion, there's a real "Catch 22" in the male stances against choice that portrays a real ethical bankruptcy. Males who proclaim that women should have little or no choice but do not acknowledge any impact to their own privacy rights are, imho, invalidating the legitimacy of their own proclamations.

any more than it is a woman's business about divorced father'srights. Men will never face the issue, so they will never be totallysympathetic... then their opinions are silly, irrelevant and purelyegotistical postulation.

After a man gives the gift -- whether it's the ring, the dinner, the flowers or the sperm, the woman receives the gift and it should be up to her solely as to what she wants to do with it/them. She can choose to include the man in her process, ask for advise, for example, which vase? (and many a man has lessons to be learned about what gifts are meant to be given and to whom!)

is it also the man's gift? So I dont have to plan on devoting my life to raising my kid, since it started as a gift? Or is it the mother's gift back to me, so she has no say over what I do with him or her?

I also believe that a person's body is his or her own and that person has ultimate authority over it.

the current regime violates the first principle in terms of males. Males can be forced to be parents legally, while females cannot (because they have the legal abortion decision.)

In the interest of fairness, I believe that a male who fathers a fetus should be able to legally divest himself of parental rights and responsibilities for that future person. He can only do that if it allows the female enough time to practically pursue an abortion upon learning of the male's intention if she so desires, knowing now that she would be alone in raising the future child.

Once a baby is born, though, a woman can no longer abort, then a man can no longer divest himself of responsibility.

I also believe that estranged, non-custodial fathers should be held responsible for 50% of the financial costs (plus compensation for the labor of the custodial parent) of raising the child to age 18. No more, no less.

listening to some of this crap on here. Why can't the man have a say? The final decision is the woman's but why is his imput so completely worthless that a woman should plug her ears instead of listening? Men have control of the government.. so what? That has nothing to do with the topic. Maybe I am being naive but I think abortion is not a decision to make lightly. You are going to have to live with your choice the rest of your life. Why not get some input from those around you? The father, the woman's mother or sister or friend might have valuable input. In other decisions in life most would welcome the input. Too many people have militant opinions about the father having any kind of voice. Again, being naive, but it took two to create the child. Why can't both DISCUSS the decision to end it?

178. OK but who gets the greater say....the person with the body or the person

with the opinion?

In a perfect world, communication would always trump the alternative. We don't live in a perfect world.

Again. If the government can tell a woman what she can do with her body, can they not tell a gay man what he can do with his? Didn't we FINALLY overturn sodomy laws? There's nothing militant about the fact that it's her body.

While some subjects may be personal and no one's business, our rights should be everyone's concern. I'm white but I'm concerned about civil rights for minorities. I'm male but I'm concerned about legal right to an abortion. I'm childless, but concerned about the education system in our country. I'm not a soldier but I'm concerned with them fighting an unjustified war. I'm not a dog or cat, but I'm concerned with animal cruelty. I'm not unemployed but I'm concerned with the job situation in our country. By your logic, I should be unconcerned with this and many other topics. Sorry, I think you are wrong. Thats just the opinion of a homosexual who shouldn't be voicing his opinion though.

Men have a say, but it's ultimately the woman's decision to bear a child or not. That being said, it should be a man's decision whether or not he wants to be responsible for the woman's kid if she decides to have it. I believe that as long as a woman has a right to choose to bear a child or not, a man should have the right to choose whether to support that child or not. Say the man wants a child, and the mother doesn't: Ok that's fine, it's her choice to abort it. Now let's say that she wants the child, and the man doesn't. The man should feel free to move away and not support her or the child. It's her body after all, and it's her fetus. She's responsible for it. 100%. People who disagree with this are hypocrites, because you can't have it both ways. You can't say that it is your choice while holding men responsible for child support if you decide to have a kid.

If it were up to me, no, men wouldn't have any say on the abortion issue, as a public policy debate. We do live in a Democracy, however, so I willingly concede that, yes, men have as much right as women do to engage in that debate.

On the personal issue of abortion, between one man and one woman, it becomes a bit stickier.To the extent that creating a pregnancy is a two person endeavor, the man has every bit as much say as the woman. If he does NOT want her to become pregnant, then he should insist that they use birth control, or refuse to have sex.Likewise, if he insists that she MUST carry the child should a pregnancy occur, then he has a moral obligation to tell her this ahead of time, or refuse to have sex.For the record, I believe the woman has the exact same responsibilities to the man.

That said, the LAST moment that pregnancy involves the man, is the moment of conception. After that moment, pregnancy is a one woman operation, and her decision, to abort or not, is unassailable.

In short, YES, men do have a choice, but because of physiology, men are forced to confront that choice at an earlier point than the woman.

Until the day it becomes possible for the man, who wants the child, to assume the burden for carrying the child, the decision must remain a womans, alone.

If a man doesn't know the woman he's doinking well enough to trust the decision she would make if she became pregnant, then he shouldn't be doinking her.

Early in our dating relationship, Mr. Dora asked me what I would want to do if "we" became pregnant. Well, being a healthy young woman of 23 years at the time, mostly emancipated from my family, and fully cognizant of the possible consequences of sexual intercourse, I told him that I wouldn't have an abortion. I did not know if I would keep the child and raise it or give it up for adoption, but I had no reason good enough to abort a child when I was of sound mind and body.

Boy, he didn't like that. He didn't want to have kids. He wasn't ready to be a father. He was 34 years old at the time (11 years older than me), and he was also separated from his now ex-wife and I think he was afraid of what a pregnancy would do that that sticky wicket.

I told him that I was on the pill, that I didn't WANT to get pregnant, and I wasn't going to TRY to get pregnant, and that if he was really that bothered by my position he should just keep his junk in his pants and leave me alone, because obviously he had business to take care of and I wasn't expecting much out of our relationship anyways.

Twelve years later we're in bliss and expecting our first and perhaps only child. He loves me and is ecstatic about becoming a father. We're both wildly pro-choice, and he's a little bit smarter about trying to impose his opinions on me.

If the "abortion debate" is in regards to a man and a woman making a decision to abort a pregnancy they are both involved in...yes, absolutely he should be in the debate. If the mother delivers the baby, he will be expected to provide support, or sign the adoption papers, so yes.

If the "abortion debate" does not involve an actual pregnancy, just discussion / debate, probably not. Here is why.

I hate to say it, but I am always a bit suspect, and a little "put off" when a man is preaching one side or the other, (pro-life or pro-choice) Privately I think "what the hell would you know about being a woman or being pregnant"? I find myself discounting anything that men say for or against pregnancy. Much like I am sure men would discount any discussion I would offer regarding jock itch, or having to shift cumbersome testicles, or prostate matters etc.

Hearing a man claim to know when life begins when he has never been pregnant nor experienced having a baby move around inside him irritates me personally.

That is all prejudice I know. I am just being honest.

Oh, by the way, I am not a big abortion fan. I would like to see abortion as an option rarely needed. But, it would be wrong to outlaw early abortions.

The problem is that pregnancy does not exist in a vacuum. It is the beginning of a family, which the father has every right to be as much as part of as the mother. The father should not be allowed to demand birth or abortion against the will of the mother, but the reverse is true too. I'm 100% pro-choice, but pregnancy is the first 9 months of a life that is as much the responsibility of the father as the mother. If conception was the intent of both parties, the decision whether to have an abortion has include the father.

I have heard of several in the military who were unable to father children after their military service. So, per one young man, the child he could have had was aborted by his girlfriend; and he said he didn't have any say in the matter.

50 men who are strangers to a particular pregnent girl have NO RIGHT TO AN OPINION ON HER DECISION!These are the worst. The old guy at the hospital gates with his propoganda. Obviously he has no involvement in the individuals lives nor does he (quite obviously) have any basis to understand the circumstances involved.I love arguing with these people. I find them to be possibly the most objectionable people on the planet.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.